What does it all mean?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:08 PM - 0 Comments

On the same day the Prime Minister promises “major transformation,” Tony Clement hints at deeper budget cuts.

Paul thinks we just heard a Throne Speech. Mark Kennedy figures the age of eligibility for Old Age Security will be raised from 65 to 67. Peter Julian and Scott Brison are worried.

“Now, he’s threatening … seems to be trying to precondition us to cuts to the OAS, which is there to help the lowest income Canadians,” charged Mr. Brison. “At a time when other global leaders at Davos are addressing income inequality not only is Harper ignoring it he’s threatening to make it worse.” Mr. Brison asserted the OAS is “very important for low income seniors and one of the reasons why Canada is successful economically is because we are progressive socially and we help vulnerable people.”

Tangentially, Susan Delacourt notes that the Prime Minister was recently advised to think “big.”

And for whatever insight might be gleaned into where this is all going—or at least what the next little while is going to sound like—here are the official Conservative talking points on the Prime Minister’s speech. Continue…

The r-word

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM - 0 Comments

The NDP has turned up more documents concerning Tony Clement and the G8 Legacy Fund. Specifically, they seem interested in the following passage from an October 2011 memo prepared for the deputy minister of industry, based on a conversation with a former employee of FedNor.

FedNor also assisted the Minister’s office in the prepartion of letters to advise unsuccessful applicants that their projects would not be forwarded to Minister Baird for his consideration. A list of unsuccessful applicants was provided by the Minister’s office to FedNor officials and letters were prepared in accordance with the direction received from the Minister’s Office.

Finally, once Minister Clement’s office provided the list of recommended projects to Minister Baird’s office, FedNor officials transferred the catalogue of projects to Infrastructure Canada officials. All 242 project proposals were sent; this included the 32 projects which were recommended by Minister Clement.

Charlie Angus stressed the r-word in relating all of this to reporters this morning, but Tony Clement has already described his role in much the same way. Consider this explanation from his appearance before the Public Accounts Committee last fall (emphasis mine). Continue…

Leading by example

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM - 0 Comments

The Prime Minister raised the issue of MP pensions in his interview with the CBC earlier this week, but, as the Finance Minister has noted, it is beyond the official purview of the government. Today the Globe reports that support for the reforms will come from the Conservative caucus. Tony Clement meanwhile muses of leading by example.

“I think you’ve got to be fair to the employee [the MP] but you also have to be fair to the taxpayer,” he told CTV’s Don Martin. “We are very cognizant of that.”

He added that no decisions have been made and that already the government is leading by example as MP and cabinet-minister salaries have been frozen this year. MPs earn $157,000 a year; cabinet ministers make $233,247 and the Prime Minister earns $315,000.

Granted, whatever they are paid, those cabinet ministers presently comprise the second-largest ministry and second-largest cabinet in history—the minister now seven larger and the cabinet now 12 larger than the groups Mr. Harper presented upon first taking office. Back then, one of Mr. Harper’s advisors enthused that reducing the cabinet from 39 (as it was under Paul Martin) to 27 would save $15 to $20 million per year. Presumably, reducing it from 39 (as it now is under Mr. Harper) to 27 would save roughly the same amount now.

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM - 0 Comments

We tried to save the House of Commons.

Brian Topp pitched higher taxes (and considered equality). Nathan Cullen pitched democratic reform. Martin Singh pitched a national pharmacare plan. Paul Dewar prioritized. Robert Chisholm talked leadership.

Elections Canada tried to figure out kids these days. The Department of National Defence tried to keep the cost of its new headquarters quiet. The NDP bought billboard space. The omnibus crime bill went unaccounted for. The House voted to keep curtailing debate. The Harperization of Canada was confirmed. The Conservatives peddled rumours and defended their right to do so. Tony Clement explained his verbal typo. And the Speaker ruled John Williamson and Geoff Regan out of order. Continue…

When “sure” doesn’t mean sure

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM - 0 Comments

After QP this afternoon, the Speaker reported to the House on the case of the “sure” deletions. According to Speaker Scheer, the word was deleted from the official transcript at the discretion of Hansard’s editors, without input from Tony Clement or anyone in Mr. Clement’s office.

Due to stringent timelines and the voluminous amounts of text, the technical task of editing is frequently parcelled out to multiple editors whose collective work for a given meeting is then reviewed by a Senior Editor. These Senior Editors look at the full context of the preliminary verbatim transcript, including the intonation of the person speaking, in order to accurately convey the intended meaning in the final transcript.  Thus, they routinely authorize the removal of redundant words, false starts, hesitations, words that might lead to confusion as to the true intent of the statement, and so on. Sometimes entire sentences are restructured for clarity. Even within the testimony of a single witness or Member speaking, it is not unusual for words to be removed in one place and retained in another if the editors judge that, in the latter case, the words do not lead to confusion or convey an unintended meaning.

Mr. Clement duly demanded an apology from the NDP’s Charlie Angus and, speaking with reporters, attempted to explain the realities of human speech patterns that caused him to answer in the affirmative when no such indication was intended. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, November 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM - 0 Comments

The long-gun registry split the NDP leadership contenders. Paul Dewar talked medical infrastructure. Nathan Cullen pitched energy policy. And Romeo Saganash explained how the NDP can grow.

Charlie Angus brought attention to Attawapiskat. Justin Trudeau quizzed Peter Kent, who spoke of treachery and dismissed himself. Rob Anders napped. Bob Rae was named parliamentarian of the year. Rob Merrifield and John Weston were dutiful partisans. Two New Democrats tried to sing along. Patrick Brown allowed that all MPs love Canada. Rick Dykstra segued. The NDP turned up new emails in the G8 Legacy Fund affair and Tony Clement pleaded his innocence. Jason Kenney brought props. And MPs debated disturbances in the House.

Continue…

The Commons: Whatever he meant, Tony Clement stands by what he said

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 7:15 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Tony Clement would not stand for this. Or rather, he would stand. Indeed, here is where he would take his stand.

For months he has been the subject of indignation and accusation. He is said by his opponents to have frivolously and flagrantly spent public funds, drawn from an account approved by Parliament for entirely unrelated reasons, on various trinkets And he is said to have subsequently avoided taking responsibility for himself, remaining in his seat while others were sent up to explain his actions away.

But now he stands accused of intervening to have the word “sure” removed from the official record of his testimony before a parliamentary committee. And so he stood, rising immediately after Question Period to solemnly proclaim his innocence on this count and to call on the Speaker to investigate.

“These baseless and outrageous allegations form a serious breach of my privilege,” he declared, “which is impeding my work as a member of this House and as a minister of the Crown.”

Mr. Clement stopped just short of demanding a full public inquiry with subpoena powers, but a police raid of the Hansard office seems in order. Continue…

‘Baseless and outrageous’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 4:51 PM - 0 Comments

After QP this afternoon, Tony Clement stood with the following point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that certain changes were made to the evidence of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on November 2, 2011, including my testimony. Members of the NDP opposition have alleged that I made those changes. I have not, nor has anyone in my employ. These baseless and outrageous allegations form a serious breach of my privilege, which is impeding my work as a member of this House and as a minister of the Crown.

I respectfully ask that you review this matter to determine how and why these changes were made and that you provide assurances to this House as to the reasons for any changes to the official record of this place. The suggestions from the opposition regarding any role by me are absolutely false, and I look forward to your attention to this matter. In conclusion, I believe you will find all the necessary information in my letter that I provided to you before question period. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Down the paper trail again

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 11:32 AM - 0 Comments

The NDP says Tony Clement misled the public accounts committee when he testified three weeks ago. The emails in questions can be viewed here.

There is also some question as to how and why the rush transcript of Mr. Clement’s committee testimony came to be altered before being entered into the official record. More here and here.

“There was a time when a minister who spent $50-million without providing any documentation would have been subject to serious sanction,” Mr. Angus said. “We now have the question of a parliamentary minister of the Crown coming to a parliamentary committee, providing false information and having someone, whoever it was, alter the public record.”

The Commons: Ipso facto governance

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM - 0 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press

The Scene. Adherents to the faith of smaller government take note, for the Harper government has successfully identified and eliminated one of the prime inefficiencies standing between us and true freedom.

“This government cannot say how many jobs were created after having spent $47 billion of Canadians’ money,” lamented the NDP’s Peter Julian this afternoon of the government’s trademarked action plan. “The program was so badly monitored that no one knows if it was effective.”

Of this, Mr. Julian can claim the authority of the auditor general, who apparently found no attempt by the government to determine precisely how many jobs it “created” (in the messianic parlance) with its billions in bridges, roads and hockey arenas.

But just because the government can’t—indeed, won’t—add, doesn’t mean Mr. Julian can’t subtract. “We now know that 72,000 full-time jobs were lost last month thanks to the policies of this government,” he asserted with his next breath. “Now that the truth is out, when will this government put aside bogus and unsubstantiated job claims and take real and immediate action to create jobs here in Canada for Canadian families?”

Jim Flaherty would at least stand to respond to this. Continue…

The Commons: James Moore’s audition

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Today, it was James Moore’s turn to pretend to be prime minister.

Unlike most of his recent predecessors, Mr. Harper has never seen fit to name a deputy. He stands alone. And so when he cannot stand or when he chooses not to (at some point he stopped showing up on Mondays), it had typically been the duty of John Baird or Peter Van Loan to stand and mouth the official bromides. Of late though Mr. Harper has chosen to disperse the burden of parliamentary accountability upon no less than five pairs of shoulders: Messrs Baird and Van Loan, Peter MacKay, Jason Kenney and James Moore. Each day the Prime Minister is away, no matter what has been asked or what actually relevant minister might be around to handle the question, it is one of these sturdy men who rises to handle the first questions of the NDP and Liberals.

So today, for instance, it was Mr. Moore’s job to stand and explain the government’s policy on the treatment of water sewage. Continue…

The Commons: Darkness in the mid-afternoon

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. The obscenity on the Hill carries on undaunted.

Maybe it is just the season—as soon as the clocks are turned back each fall, Ottawa is suddenly made even darker and colder than usual—but the daily insulting of the public’s intelligence seems particularly dreary of late. For sure, it has been worse. And it may yet get worse. But has it ever seemed so witless? Has it ever felt so leaden? Is it just us or is it getting dim in here?

There is much to be said—with expletives and otherwise—about the government’s recent penchant for shutting down debate. But it is surely more than that.

It is, no doubt, certain practicalities: the temporary status of the two opposition leaders, the prolonged nature of certain disagreements or the lack of some tangible new gazebo-based outrage to focus on, for instance. But it is also the collective and universal decision that sound economics, study and evidence are not particularly necessary when formulating public policy. It is the rote demagoguery. It is general neglect. It is smug disregard. It is the willingness of grown men and women in business attire to stand and allow themselves to be used to read scripted banalities and invective into the official record.

It is not all bad, of course. Continue…

Add another to the enemies list

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

On Friday, Michel Dorais, a member of the internal audit committee which oversees the Auditor General, resigned in protest. In Question Period, Mr. Dorais’ resignation was raised by Liberal MP Denis Coderre. Afterward, Tony Clement stood with a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today there was some mention from the Liberal Party of a gentleman by the name of Michel Dorais. Further to this topic of discussion, I would like to inform the House that Michel Dorais donated in 2009 to former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. I certainly make no allegations of the partisan leanings of the individual; I simply find that the House should be informed of these facts. I table these documents.

The Commons: Tony Clement comes clean

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 7:39 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Tony Clement, his suit tightly buttoned up, arrived at precisely 3:30pm in the appointed room where the public accounts committee was scheduled to demand some kind of public accountability of him. The next hour and 45 minutes would mostly be spent trying to explain why there was little reason to be there.

He did not sit at the far end of the table alone. Beside him sat John Baird, the Foreign Affairs Minister who now officially splits his time between representing this country on the world stage and speaking on Mr. Clement’s behalf in the House of Commons. Around the two cabinet ministers sat a total of four previously anonymous bureaucrats. To the left of this group sat no less than eight Conservative MPs, here as members of the committee (or rather, as would soon become clear, loyal representatives of the Conservative Party of Canada). Behind these Conservative MPs sat their dutiful aides. And in the area reserved for the spectators appeared to be still more professional supporters, including at least one young man from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Opposite the Conservative brigade sat four New Democrats, one Liberal, their own dutiful aides and, for whatever reason, Pat Martin. Later, Elizabeth May stopped by, though her attempt to ask a question was foiled after the debate about whether she was allowed to ran so long that there was no time left for her to actually do so.

“It is indeed a pleasure to be here,” Mr. Clement said by way of opening. The rest was smiles and laughs and sighing. Continue…

Clement at committee

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM - 0 Comments

We are a few hours away now from Tony Clement’s appearance before the public accounts committee. Greg Weston offers five questions Mr. Clement needs to answer.

Exactly who in government approved the pilfering of the border improvement fund, and given the severity of the auditor general’s findings, what disciplinary action has been taken against those responsible? … How do Canadian taxpayers benefit if a minister becomes involved in nepotism and meddling with officials trying to protect the public purse?

Checking the math

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 31, 2011 at 1:49 PM - 0 Comments

The NDP’s Alexandre Boulerice has dispatched a letter to Tony Clement for the purposes of clarifying the government’s accounting, specifically as it relates to a budget line for grants to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. The full text of the letter below.

I’ve asked Mr. Clement’s office for a response and will post that once it arrives. The early word apparently claims a technical glitch. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 6:39 PM - 0 Comments

Martin Singh touted himself as the pro-business candidate. Thomas Mulcair touted himself as Stephen Harper’s nightmare and a man who can say no to organized labour. Paul Dewar unveiled his urban agenda and worked the room in Toronto. And Peggy Nash joined the race with two objectives.

There was yet another reason to question the purchase of new F-35s. David Anderson tried to explain the Canadian Wheat Board with a cartoon. More emails meant more questions for Tony Clement, which Deepak Obhrai and Pierre Poilievre promptly threw themselves in front of. Stephen Harper worried about the global economy. And the government pledged to destroy all traces of the long-gun registry, while the Victims Ombudsman defended the registry’s usefulness. Continue…

Parliament: now literally a joke

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 4:27 PM - 0 Comments

Pierre Poilievre, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, responding this afternoon to the NDP’s Alexander Boulerice, who asked if the government would allow a parliamentary inquiry into the G8 Legacy Fund to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there already has been an inquiry into it. There has been an exhaustive review by the interim Auditor General. If I could quote a truly great Canadian, “The facts have not changed.” Everyone could take a moment now to recognize that truly great Canadian, ladies and gentlemen, the honourable member for Calgary East.

The member for Calgary East is Deepak Obhrai, who was, until yesterday, the Conservative MP assigned to handle questions about the G8 Legacy Fund when John Baird is absent from the House.

Today’s round of Legacy Fund questions after the jump. Continue…

‘Anything you need’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM - 1 Comment

Peter Kent reiterates to the Star that his conversation with Vern Freedlander wasn’t as Mr. Freedlander reported it. Whatever the case, Mr. Freedlander wasn’t registered as a lobbyist.

Freedlander billed the Town of Huntsville a total of $16,588.51 from December 2008 to September 2009, including a monthly retainer that worked out to $187.50 per hour.

One email from Freedlander to John Finley, the Huntsville economic development and grants officer, lays out the work the consultant would do for the municipality and his fee. “I will be available for phone consultation, lobbying efforts, anything you need,” Freedlander wrote in the Dec. 3, 2008 email. Apart from the email discussing the alleged conversation with Kent and another email requesting the contact information of someone at the foreign affairs department, there are no signs that Freedlander spoke to federal officials about the G8 Summit on Huntsville’s behalf.

The Commons: Over and over again

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM - 13 Comments

The Scene. At some point some months ago, it was decided—by whoever makes such decisions in whatever underground lair the important decisions are rendered—that Tony Clement would not be standing in the House any more to account for his actions in regards to the G8 Legacy Fund. Presumably, this seemed like a good idea at the time. Conceivably, this was thought to be fine communications strategy, at least insofar as “communications” now mostly involves figuring out how best to steer conversations away from any kind of reflection.

This decision was likely based on the premise that the questions would eventually cease to be asked if Mr. Clement refused to respond. That the opposition parties would get bored or distracted or frustrated, and the questions about gazebos and such would subside and everyone would move on to something less consequential.

Alas, the solution has become a communications problem of its own. For here we are, months later, and the questions have not ceased. Each and every day (or nearly so), at least one MP from the NDP side is sent up to ask at least one more question of or related to Mr. Clement. And each and every day (or nearly so), Mr. Clement sits and does nothing on his own behalf, except maybe to mutter at the question asked of him or applaud the answer offered for him.

We arrive at this daily spectacle as a result of what must only be termed an epiphany on the opposition side. Continue…

‘He doesn’t know what he’s talking about’

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM - 5 Comments

Tony Clement repudiates his friend’s understanding of how government works.

Tony Clement said a Toronto-based media consultant he recommended for a municipal job in his riding did not know what he was talking about when he said infrastructure projects were being approved directly by Cabinet.

“That’s false and ridiculous,” Clement, the treasury board president, said Tuesday when asked about what Vern Freedlander, vice-president of production at X2O Media Inc. told Huntsville Mayor Claude Doughty in a December 29, 2008 email. “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

This week in mocking Parliament

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM - 1 Comment

The NDP persisted again yesterday in asking questions about the G8 Legacy Fund. With Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird away from the House, the government side, again, sent up Deepak Obhrai to respond.

Mr. Obhrai’s responsibility for the management of the G8 Legacy Fund remains unclear. It would seem he is responding as the current parliamentary secretary to the minister (Mr. Baird), who, in a previous portfolio (Industry Transport), had the authority to sign-off on the requests made by Tony Clement and Mr. Clement’s mayors.

The list of Conservative MPs who could be said to have more to do with the expenditure of public funds for infrastructure and/or the ethical standards for the behaviour of cabinet ministers would include some or all of: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Industry Minister Christian Paradis, either of Mr. Paradis’ two parliamentary secretaries (Pierre Poilievre and Mike Lake), Transport Minister Denis Lebel, Mr. Lebel’s parliamentary secretary Pierre Poilievre, government House leader Peter Van Loan, Mr. Van Loan’s parliamentary secretary, Tom Lukiwski, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mr. Harper’s parliamentary secretary, Dean Del Mastro. Not to mention Mr. Clement himself.

Whatever Mr. Obhrai’s relevance, the Conservatives seated around him seem to find great humour in watching him stand and respond.

You’ve got a friend in government

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 1 Comment

The Star obtains new emails related to the goings on in Huntsville.

An email dated Dec. 29, 2008, has Freedlander detailing a conversation with Environment Minister Peter Kent, his former broadcast colleague, who at that time was minister of state for the Americas. His written recollection of the conversation suggests that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and John Baird, who was then minister of transport, were approving infrastructure funding applications submitted to them by their Conservative caucus colleagues.

“(Kent) told me he will whole-heartedly (sic) support the Huntsville IMC at cabinet and wanted to make sure we pass along our pitch to Tony Clement ASAP,” says the email addressed to Doughty and copied to two other senior municipal officials. “Peter tells me that right now MPs are being asked to provide infrastructure projects to cabinet for direct approvals by Baird and Flaherty. They earlier shovels get in the ground the better.”

Mr. Kent’s office denies any such conversation ever took place.

Vern Freedlander was previously referenced in an email between Tony Clement and Huntsville mayor Claude Doughty, in which Mr. Clement put Mr. Freedlander in touch with Mr. Doughty about a job. (Mr. Doughty told the CBC that Mr. Freedlander began working for the town of Huntsville on that job in early 2009. The email obtained by the Star predates that, but only slightly.)

Where’s the report?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM - 7 Comments

Stephen Maher wonders where the G8 Legacy Fund paper trail is.

FedNor official Tom Dodds “noted that FedNor is going to evaluate all projects applying basic tourism principles and provide a recommendation in a report for March 30.” This is the way things are supposed to work. Municipalities make submissions. Officials consider those submissions, apply criteria, and select projects. So when the auditor general later reviewed the fund, auditors were surprised to find there was no paperwork showing how projects were selected. Where’s Dodds’ report?